1986 P Cr (PLP)
BAQIR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | BAQIR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (BAQIR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehar Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Appraisal of evidence‑‑Trial Court as well as appellate Court having found accused guilty after appraising evidence‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence in revisional jurisdiction, held, could not be done in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Appraisal of evidence‑‑Trial Court as well as appellate Court having found accused guilty after appraising evidence‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence in revisional jurisdiction, held, could not be done in circumstances. Mehar Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner. Baqir Shah son of Haider Shah, Syed by caste, resident of village Dholar, Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha was tried by Magistrate First Class, Shahpur, District Sargodha under section 411, P.P.C. for the theft of buffalo alongwith calf. He was convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I. by judgment, dated 11‑5‑1985. He went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide judgment, dated 17‑7‑1985. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conviction was illegal. It was based on the evidence which was not of reliable type. I do not agree with this. The two Courts below after going through the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty. There is a concurrent finding and in the revisional jurisdiction 'of this Court I am not prepared to reappraise the evidence. However, I think that the petitioner who is not a previous convict is entitled to the concession in the quantum of sentence. He has been behind the bars for the last five months. I think this period is sufficient. So, the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. This revision stands disposed of. S.A. Revision dismissed